header-logo header-logo

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Practice

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Nov)

A time-limited offer was not capable of being a CPR 36 offer, as the structure of Pt 36 in general—and the provisions of CPR 36.2(2) and CPR 36.14(6) in particular—established that an offer had to be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR 36.9(2). CPR 36.9(2) provided a strong indicator of the sort of offer with which Pt 36 was concerned. The indicator was that it was an offer which was at least capable of being withdrawn and was not one which came to an end according to its own terms. Under CPR 36.14 there was a severe costs sanction placed on a defendant who did not accept a Pt 36 offer where there was judgment against the defendant which was at least as advantageous to the claimant as the proposals contained in a claimant’s Pt 36 offer.

That sanction did not apply where the Pt 36 offer had been withdrawn or where the terms had been

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll